Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-03 HPC MIN (rescheduled from March meeting) HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2019 (rescheduled from March 20, 2019) 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Welty, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Hadrits Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of February 11, 2019 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Welty, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2019 meeting. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2019-04: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage. Property located at 224 Chestnut St E, in the CBD district. Tomy O’Brien, property owner and Mike Herman, applicant. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 2019-03: Consideration of a Demolition Permit to demolish the existing structure and build a new home. Property located at 615 Broadway Street South, in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Reid and Julie Miller, property owners. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting approval of the demolition of the residential structure located at 615 Broadway Street South (located within the original Stillwater plat). The property owners would like to construct a new single family residence on the property. Ms. Wittman summarized the history of the property. The 2018 valuation was $508,300 ($335,000 land value and $173,300 dwelling value). There is evidence of deferred maintenance including water intrusion from poorly installed siding, flashing and trim; incomplete roof flashings; rotted deck boards; deteriorated window glazing putty; and minor foundation cracks. All items are considered repairable. The only safety issue is the garage auto reverse sensor not working. The applicants submitted testimony from Todd Anderson, with Lifespace Construction, Inc., indicating that one portion of the home’s construction is typical of agricultural-style buildings. Ms. Wittman stated a site visit in April 2018 found a significant amount of original woodwork on the main floor, the main house is not in a state of disrepair or a hazard and appears to be in fair condition. There are repairable cracks in the limestone foundation. Many of the original floor joists are rotted and have been sistered. Some joist repair or replacement would be required. One public comment was received from Mary Louise Menikheim who asked that if a demolition permit is issued, any new construction should be conditional upon maintaining infill guidelines and be limited to the current Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 3, 2019 Page 2 of 4 footprint. Ms. Wittman continued that another concern brought up today is whether the placement of the garage would negatively impact an existing service line along the property line. As staff has determined the structure is a potentially historic resource, staff recommends the Commission make a positive determination that the front 25’ portion of the structure is a historic resource, deny the demolition application and direct the Community Development Director to initiate a designation study. Jean Rehkamp Larson, architect, explained her background in historic preservation and renovation including serving on boards. She stated that the important factors are how the existing house fits the rhythm of the neighborhood, the front porch, and the small scale of the front façade. It was concluded that there would be so little of the original structure that could remain, and the economic hardship and design challenges would be so great that they don’t balance with what could be done through a new design. The new design is preliminary but there has been a lot of thought put into how it will fit into the neighborhood. The homeowners are committed to making it feel historic. Reid Miller, applicant, stated that they have had structural engineers evaluate the house. The front one-third of the structure was built before 1946, but significant demolitions and/or remodeling since 1946 have impacted the historical validity of the structure. He showed pictures indicating a main support beam and all the main trusses are rotting. The cost of reconstruction would be significant. All the plumbing and wiring is running through sistered joints and would all have to be replaced. There is mold in the walls that would have to be remediated. Julie Miller, applicant, reminded the Commission that she and her husband are not “the enemy,” they are asking for reasonable consideration. Their original intent was to update the home but the inspector documented so much deterioration that they are not comfortable updating the home with such a faulty foundation. Chairman Larson opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mino stated she has met the applicants and has been in the house. Chairman Larson thanked the applicants for their thorough application. He explained that the HPC only hears cases in the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD), not other districts. The first consideration, prior to considering the design sketches, is the demolition application. Ms. Rehkamp Larson said without knowing what will go there, it may be difficult to determine whether demolition is OK. Councilmember Junker pointed out that demolition requests are from homeowners who want to sell, rather than retain the property. Commissioner Welty suggested that the applicants’ realtor probably showed them pictures and did a walk through, and the sale could have been made contingent on inspection. The fact that now the house is not good enough yet it was good enough to buy it is confusing. Mr. Miller responded they bought it intending to renovate. They did not engage a structural engineer before buying the house. They have had numerous conversations with Ms. Wittman trying to understand what elements of the house are historically significant. It came down to the silhouette of the house and the two windows on the top. The modernization done in the 90s significantly altered the historic character. Chairman Larson explained that the HPC has no review authority for renovation or remodeling in the NCD unless more than 20% of the entire front façade is altered to the extent it is considered a demolition. This is disconcerting in that the HPC has no say in extensive remodeling projects that could do a lot of historic damage. Ms. Wittman stated that early on, she advised the Millers that if they keep the front portion, the project wouldn’t go before the HPC. Ms. Rehkamp Larson responded that one constraint was that they were hoping to create a front facing garage and avoid the tuck-under because most houses on that side of the street have front facing garages. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 3, 2019 Page 3 of 5 However the 20 foot setback would have been too tight for a two car garage. For these owners, rehabilitation is not reasonable and does not make sense. Commissioner Steinwall commented the HPC is not acting on the design permit tonight. She asked about specific costs associated with the rehabilitation elements. The HPC must determine is whether there is a feasible alternative to demolition. Mr. Miller replied they did not obtain exact costs. Spending $120,000-130,000 to reconstruct something that has been so undermined by modernization and has several deteriorating elements does not make sense. Ms. Rehkamp Larson responded there is always a feasible option. The house is livable. However in the context of these homeowners and their goals for their property it is not a feasible choice. It is hard to define feasible. To ask how much it costs to renovate it is asking how to create a foundation that is waterproofed appropriately and how to replace electrical and other systems. There would be extensive work involved and it would be hard to put a number on it. Councilmember Junker remarked there are some homes in the neighborhood from the 1890s and the goal is to maintain that same character. He understands that renovation would cost a lot more and that the structure as it is today is not really the 1890s house. But to demolish an 1890s house is a big step in Stillwater. Chairman Larson said he struggles with how the ordinances are written. He recognized that if the applicants kept the front façade and rebuilt the rest they would not have to come before the HPC. Ms. Rehkamp Larson stated the site warrants high quality, long-lasting construction. Commissioner Welty said the massing, the fenestration and the front porch are all “right” and make it a historic home. Ms. Wittman explained that if denied, the next step is preparation of a designation study and the City Council is the body that decides whether a study is ordered. She acknowledged the process is cumbersome. Commissioner Mino asked what part of the front façade is considered new. Ms. Wittman replied the demolition ordinance states that full removal, removal of 50% of the façade, or removal of 20% of the front façade are all considered to be demolition. The Sanborn map shows a porch on the structure. The building permit history on this structure is very slim. Mr. Miller added it is unknown whether it was flat boards or whether it was sided. Commissioner Mino said it looks like the porch would have been original except for being enclosed. Mr. Miller said the façade of the house was made to look totally different by enclosing the porch. Addressing Ms. Menikheim’s written concern, Chairman Larson noted that a new house would need to follow infill guidelines but the HPC cannot require that it maintain the footprint of the existing house. Mr. Miller said he spent time with the owners of 709 Second Street and the process they went through for their designation study. Commissioner Welty commented that very simple homes can be historic. Vernacular homes tell the story of the town. There are probably plenty of people who would buy this house as it is. Commissioner Steinwall reiterated that the question before the HPC is not whether it’s designated, but whether it’s a historic resource. She recited from code what is considered to be a historic resource. Mr. Miller pointed out that the South Hill inventory says the house is not historically significant. Ms. Wittman responded that the neighborhood report on the South Hill done in 1996, property by property, included a recommendation to explore the creation of a historic district on the South Hill. Even though this is a potential historic district doesn’t mean everything is historically significant. Stillwater has very few designated historically significant residences. The inventory form says it’s not preliminarily eligible for the National Register but indicates it is part of the local historic context of the neighborhood. Staff made the Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 3, 2019 Page 4 of 4 preliminary determination that it is potentially historically significant based on the development of residential neighborhoods in Stillwater. Commissioner Welty stated that historic resource and historically significant are two different terms. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to find that the home at 615 Broadway Street South is a historic resource and that there are feasible alternatives to demolition, and to deny Case No. 2019-03, Demolition Permit to demolish the existing structure and build a new home. Motion passed 5-0. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 2019 Preservation Awards Ms. Wittman said May is National Historic Preservation month. This year is the 25th anniversary of the City’s annual awards program. She provided a list of 2018 projects for discussion at the next meeting. WCHS Member Seat Ms. Wittman noted the Commission still has a vacant seat for a Washington County Historical Society (WCHS) representative. Commissioner Steinwall said she is a member of the WCHS so her presence on the Commission might be considered as filling that requirement. Ms. Wittman said she will bring this to the City Council for their determination. That still leaves a vacancy for another voting member. Commissioner Welty has indicated she will go off the Commission so staff has advertised for candidates and has one application. Commissioner Hadrits has not indicated whether she wants to continue to serve after her term expires in May. Sidewalk improvement project Commissioner Welty said that her street is up for reconstruction. She thinks the HPC should have input about the proposed sidewalks. The City is putting in 5’ sidewalks but a lot of the historic sidewalks are 3-4’. Additionally, the sidewalk is going beyond the concrete nosing of some of the stair stringers which is hazardous. She thinks 4’ should be the City standard for sidewalks. Chairman Larson remarked the HPC could recommend to the Council that the sidewalks be kept as close to original width as possible. Ms. Wittman said she can discuss that with the engineering department. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Chairman Larson to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary